Why would there be a rule against that? He can sign as many 1 year deals as he wants. The only rule is that he can't sign for more than 8 years at a time.

None of that really matters though. He wants to go the Auston Matthews route of getting paid now and being a UFA as soon as possible. He has no interest in an 8 year deal this year or next.
- Hunkulese

Source? Or are you just speculating?

I really like what I have seen from dube so far ...it’s only preseason but he looks like he will make this team. If he could stick with the big boys that would give us a lot of options on the next two lines. I’d like to see a lot of experimenting the rest of the preseason
- Redmile247

Agree. Dube is looking focused!

Why would there be a rule against that? He can sign as many 1 year deals as he wants. The only rule is that he can't sign for more than 8 years at a time.

None of that really matters though. He wants to go the Auston Matthews route of getting paid now and being a UFA as soon as possible. He has no interest in an 8 year deal this year or next.
- Hunkulese

Because you can sign a guy intra-year, I was curious if a 1 year deal might preclude them from negotiating the extension in-season or not, or if they closed such a loophole in the CBA somewhere.

Source? Or are you just speculating?
- K-man25

Everything's just speculation at this point. Only the Flames and Tkachuk's team know what's going on. There have been plenty of rumours about him wanting a 5 year deal, he was personally gushing over Matthews contract when it was signed and really liked the term, and it makes the most sense for the player.

Because you can sign a guy intra-year, I was curious if a 1 year deal might preclude them from negotiating the extension in-season or not, or if they closed such a loophole in the CBA somewhere.
- rmull905

I don't really see why it would be a loophole or frowned upon. They can't officially sign a nine year contract. That's all that matters.

Stone signed a one year deal as an RFA and was still negotiating his extension the following year.

I don't really see why it would be a loophole or frowned upon. They can't officially sign a nine year contract. That's all that matters.

Stone signed a one year deal as an RFA and was still negotiating his extension the following year.
- Hunkulese

Because they could sign him for a $5million this year, then extend him next week for 4yrs*$8million plus a $3million bonus on July 1, 2020. There's your 5 year/ $8million per deal and it keeps the Flames comfortably under the cap this season.

Because they could sign him for a $5million this year, then extend him next week for 4yrs*$8million plus a $3million bonus on July 1, 2020. There's your 5 year/ $8million per deal and it keeps the Flames comfortably under the cap this season.
- tincup

What's the loophole there? They sign him to a 1 year deal and then a 4 year deal. Why would that be an issue for anyone? The Flames own his rights for the next 5 years. That's all that really matters. No one else is going to care how they sort out the contracts.

There are far bigger problems that no one seems to care about like the 3 year deals with a massive 3rd year or Marner signing a deal for 11 per but making 31 million in the first two years and only getting paid by signing bonuses.

It's perfectly legal, but a handshake deal for a 1 year and a 4 year deal that balanced out to 8 million would never happen. Too much risk for both sides and the potential to ruin the relationship beyond repair. What happens if Tkachuk only gets 40 points this year? What happens if Tkachuk gets 120 points? A one year deal with plans to figure something out next year could definitely happen, but they wouldn't have set terms for that second deal.

It's funny that Laine is the one complaining about his linemates when Tkachuk probably has 40 goals, 90+ points, and Marner money if he had been on the top line with the Flames the past few years.

What's the loophole there? They sign him to a 1 year deal and then a 4 year deal. Why would that be an issue for anyone? The Flames own his rights for the next 5 years. That's all that really matters. No one else is going to care how they sort out the contracts.

There are far bigger problems that no one seems to care about like the 3 year deals with a massive 3rd year or Marner signing a deal for 11 per but making 31 million in the first two years and only getting paid by signing bonuses.

It's perfectly legal, but a handshake deal for a 1 year and a 4 year deal that balanced out to 8 million would never happen. Too much risk for both sides and the potential to ruin the relationship beyond repair. What happens if Tkachuk only gets 40 points this year? What happens if Tkachuk gets 120 points? A one year deal with plans to figure something out next year could definitely happen, but they wouldn't have set terms for that second deal.

It's funny that Laine is the one complaining about his linemates when Tkachuk probably has 40 goals, 90+ points, and Marner money if he had been on the top line with the Flames the past few years.
- Hunkulese

I think what he's talking about is if the 1 year and 4 year are signed at essentially the same time because a player can be extended in the last year of a contract. That, some would argue, is a circumvention of the cap. No way would Tkachuk sign a $5million one year without the extension already in place.

I think what he's talking about is if the 1 year and 4 year are signed at essentially the same time because a player can be extended in the last year of a contract. That, some would argue, is a circumvention of the cap. No way would Tkachuk sign a $5million one year without the extension already in place.
- tincup

There is a rule against that. If you sign a one year deal, you can't be extended until after January 1st.

Tkachuk would love a one year five million dollar deal. The Flames definitely would not.